TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d goods by filing 21 SEZ Bills of Entry during the period between February-2025 to April-2025. The subject goods were to be warehoused with M/s. Cargo Care Agency situated at Shed No. 366, FA-1 Type, Phase-I, Sector- IV, Kandla SEZ, Gandhidham-370240 which is FTWZ unit. M/s. Cargo Care Agency was granted permission for broad-banding of the LOA to include additional manufacturing activities, namely cutting, trimming and stitching for DTA and foreign clients vide letter of approval dated 30.12.2025. 1.2 The subject goods were placed on hold by DRI, AZU, Ahmedabad for detailed examination under various Panchnamas. Samples of each type of fabric drawn during the examination were forwarded to Customs House, Kandla (SIIB) for testing and analysis. Based on the test reports, the department alleged that the goods imported by the appellant were not 'Tarpaulins' but fabrics of varying specifications. The DRI, vide letter dated 20.03.2025, informed the appellant that specific intelligence indicated import of multiple varieties of fabric in the guise of 'Tarpaulin' by the appellant at Kandla SEZ. The imported consignments covered under various Bills of Entry, lying in the warehouse of M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.2 The learned Counsel for the appellant prayed that conditions of furnishing of bond amounting to Rs. 2,82,20,472/- and a bank guarantee of Rs. 29,24,465/- for provisional release of the subject goods are arbitrary and illegal therefore, the impugned order may be set aside to the extent of demanding bond amounting to Rs. 2,82,20,472/- and a bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 29,24,465/-. 3. The learned AR has reiterated the impugned order and submitted that I.E.C. of the appellant M/s. H R Enterprises was being misused for import of various goods by Haresh Shethiya who is the actual importer of goods. The learned AR prayed that the impugned order may be upheld and the appeal may be rejected. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned AR for the department and perused the records. 4.1 By means of the impugned order dated 08.04.2026 the learned Assistant Commissioner ordered for provisional release of the 21 seized consignments under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, subject to submission of bond equal to the value of goods amounting to Rs. 2,82,20472/- and submission of bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 29,24,465/- to be produced for DTA cleara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trepreneur or goods exported or services provided within the SEZ zone or from a Unit. 4.4 Section 30(a) of the SEZ Act provides that any goods removed from SEZ to DTA shall be chargeable with customs duty and other duties under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 where applicable, as leviable on such goods when imported. Section 30 of SEZ Act is reproduced below for ready reference:- "30. Domestic clearance by Units. - Subject to the conditions specified in the rules made by the Central Government in this behalf :- (a) any goods removed from a Special Economic Zone to the Domestic Tariff Area shall be chargeable to duties of customs including anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard duties under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), where applicable, as leviable on such goods when imported; and (b) the rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to goods removed from a Special Economic Zone shall be at the rate and tariff valuation in force as on the date of such removal, and where such date is not ascertainable, on the date of payment of duty." 4.5 In view of above legal position, it is evident that customs duty liability will arise only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India reported at 2026 (1) TMI 224 (SC). Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "28. Learned senior counsel further submitted that Section 30 of the SEZ Act requires parity of treatment. Goods removed from an SEZ into the DTA are to bear the same customs duty "as if imported into India". Imported electrical energy has consistently stood at a nil rate of customs duty. Therefore, electrical energy cleared from an SEZ to the DTA must equally attract nil customs duty. Imposing duty on SEZ-generated electricity while imported electricity carries no duty produces an artificial and constitutionally suspect classification. It was urged that such a differential treatment directly defeats the object of the SEZ Act and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. *** 60. Section 12 of the Customs Act is the charging provision. It contemplates a duty on goods imported into India. Section 30 of the SEZ Act says that goods cleared from an SEZ to the DTA "shall be chargeable to duties of customs as leviable on such goods when imported". This is a parity clause. It says: treat SEZto- DTA clearances as if they bore the same duty as comparable imports. It does not say: re....